+ Sponsors

Friday, 16 August 2013

Olympus E-P5 Review Part II

Interior, Bryn Athyn Cathedral

A Review of the Olympus E-P5
From a Street and Travel Photographer’s Perspective

Reviewed byGordon Lewis

Part 2—User Report and Conclusions

In the first half of this review I described my first impressions of the Olympus Pen E-P5 and what it was like to set it up and get ready to shoot. This part will describe what it’s like to actually shoot with it. My bias is toward street and travel photography. Because of the E-P5’s compact size, interchangeable lenses, and relatively large sensor, street and travel are sure to be a natural market for this sort of camera.

Handling
The Olympus E-P5 is one of those cameras that, as the saying goes, "falls naturally to hand." It feels neither too light nor too heavy, is well-balanced, and the controls you need are where you need them. I most often shoot in aperture preferred mode, and it felt perfectly natural to adjust the aperture with the rear dial and exposure compensation with the front. I was able to carry the E-P5 on my wrist or in a small shoulder bag for hours at a time without getting fatigued, which is a valuable quality for a street and travel camera.

This is one of the first shots I took with the E-P5 and 17mm ƒ/1.8. I
intended it as something of a torture test. The bridge was backlit, with
the sun slightly veiled by clouds. The water and trees were dark. Could
this camera and lens combo avoid over-exposing the sky, not cause flare
in the shadows, and resolve fine detail? As you can see, the answer is
yes. I did have to clean up some chromatic abberation between the bridge
and sky, but that was about it.

I'm not the only person who thought so. A photo enthusiast friend of mine saw me using it at a backyard barbeque and asked if he could try it out. I literally just handed it over. After a few shots he exclaimed, "This thing is sweet! I love how it feels." Handling aside, he was most impressed with the fact that although it was early evening, the E-P5 was able to focus accurately and deliver well-exposed, razor sharp, available light photos at an average shutter speed of 1/20 second at ISO 1600. He was so impressed that he plans to buy an E-P5 to take with him on his honeymoon to Jamaica.

But I digress. Another source of joy in handling is the shutter release. The button is generously sized, and with an action that's just right: firm and quick, yet not a hair trigger, and with a soft yet solid click. Another sound you’ll notice when you press the shutter button is the soft whir of the in-body image stabilization (IBIS). My subjects weren't able to hear it though, even when I was only a few feet away.

As great as the E-P5 feels in general, it isn't perfect. The bottom plate has a relatively sharp radius, which makes the camera uncomfortable to hold in the right hand for extended periods, especially if you’re using a wrist strap. This is aggravated by the fact that the front gripping surface is so small you often have to wrap your two lower fingers under the camera to support it.

Shooting
First, I have to say how surprised and delighted I was with how quickly the E-P5 focused in bright-to-medium light. It seemed, for all practical purposes, instantaneous. Even when I aimed it at someone walking or even running towards me, the E-P5 nailed the focus in a fraction of a second.

This isn’t a great shot in and of itself. What’s impressive in this case
is that when I noticed these people running towards me, I literally
just raised the E-P5 to my eye and snapped the shutter. It locked focus
instantly and accurately.

I didn't have time to try it in follow-focus mode with moving subjects, but based on my experience with other mirrorless cameras, that is not likely to be its strength. The same is true in low light, especially at distances beyond the range of the E-P5's AF assist light. The focus accuracy becomes hit or miss. Fortunately, the VF-4 viewfinder had enough resolution that I could often tell if the focus was off and, if time permitted, focus manually.

Here's another example of where the E-P5 was able to focus as soon as I
raised the camera to my eye and released the shutter. The fact that his
posture mirrors that of mannekin is
pure luck and coincidence.

As I mentioned before, I preferred to use the 10X magnification feature when focusing manually or to simply zone focus. When you're using a 17mm lens set to ƒ/5.6 or ƒ/8, you've got a lot of depth-of-field and margin for error. The E-P5 also has a "focus peaking" feature that overlays a white outline over areas that are within the plane of focus. The lines were difficult to see clearly and their accuracy seemed too subjective at times, so I didn't use it much. It could be more useful with manual-focus-only lenses, though.

Big win for Micro 4/3 in general: The comparison with my Canon 85mm ƒ/1.8 EF is particularly telling. It represents how big the typical full-frame, medium-tele, AF lens is these days—without a hood! The Olympus 45mm ƒ/1.8 m.Zuiko captures roughly the same angle of view and has the same aperture but is a lot smaller and lighter.

Another thing I discovered is that the E-P5's auto white balance had trouble with tungsten and fluorescent lighting. I had to change the white balance to tungsten or fluorescent to get a reasonably neutral balance on screen. Unlike DSLRS, live view-only cameras such as the E-P5 give a close approximation of the white balance and exposure you will see in a JPEG. If you're shooting RAW you can simply correct in post. If you're shooting JPEGs (the E-P5's JPEGS are excellent, by the way) you need to correct the white balance before you shoot.

Here's an example of how the E-P5 performs in indoor tungsten lighting. I
had to cool down the white balance and adjust the framing a bit;
otherwise, this shot is pretty much as-is.

When it came to framing shots, I noticed that when the IBIS kicks in it stablizes the image so well that minor framing adjustments seem to have no effect. This is barely noticeable when you're doing grab shots. When you're trying to frame precisely it can take a second or two more time to get it right.

Wi-Fi and Video
I hope you weren’t waiting for this, because I didn't try either one out. I can tell you, however, that I've done several tech guides for Canon on how to use their Wi-Fi feature and Olympus's version is designed to be a lot more user-friendly and automated. It basically allows you to use your cellphone or iPad as a remote display and controller for the camera. Instead of entering a series of network ID numbers, you link you mobile device to the E-P5 by scanning a QR code that appears on the E-P5's LCD. What you gain in simplicity, however, you lose in flexibility. The Olympus Wi-Fi control function only works when the camera is set to its "iAuto" mode and your ability to adjust camera functions is limited.

Image Quality
I'm still using Adobe Lightroom 4 to process my images. Because LR4 won't read E-P5 RAW files (LR5 will), I had to first convert them to DNG with the latest version of Adobe Raw Converter, then import them into LR4. The effort was worth it. Practically every file looked correctly exposed from the start. Blown highlights were rare. Shadows were deep but detailed. I’ll let you judge the overall color pallette and tonality yourself from the sample images I've provided. I would personally characterized it as subtle yet distinctive and very flattering to skin tones.

Here's another test of the E-P5's exposure metering and dynamic range,
which it once again passed with flying colors. I did minimal
post-processing, yet there is detail in the brightest highlights and
deepest shadows.

As for how the E-P5 files compared to those of my two other cameras, a Nikon V1 and Canon EOS 60D, they were noticeably more sharp and had better microcontrast and color clarity than images from the Nikon V1. They also required less post-processing and were easier to adjust. This wasn't a dramatic difference, mind you; just enough to be noticeable.

I took this shot in the evening, with the only light from a patio light
15 feet away and from the room behind my friend Dan. He looked like a
silhouette to the naked eye. Here's what he looked like at an exposure 1/20
second at ISO 1600.

Here's the same image at 100%. Not bad for a handheld shot at 1/20 second!

When I compared the E-P5 files to similar shots from my EOS 60D, it was a lot harder to say which was better overall. Image stabilization meant the E-P5 files had less blur from camera shake, but the 60D files had more consistently sharp focus in low light. ISO-for-ISO, 60D files looked slightly smoother, while E-P5 files had a bit more grit and "character." The 60D was better at ISOs above 1600, but if you’re using fast lenses and image stabilization there’s not much need to shoot above ISO 1600 anyway. Suffice it to say that your technical abilities are more likely to be the limiting factor with the E-P5 than the camera itself. Its capabilities well exceed what you'd be able to see or display in a web-sized JPEG. Sharp lenses and good technique can produce excellent 16x20-inch prints with ease.

Summary
I would have no second thoughts about tossing the Olympus E-P5 into my shoulder bag and taking it on a trip or out for a few hours of street shooting. It's small enough to be inconspicuous, light enough to be comfortably carried all day, and capable of producing amazingly high-quality photos.

If I were in the market to buy one though, I'd have to look at similarly spec'd alternatives, which are hard to dismiss. The Fuji E-X1, for example, is of similar size and weight, cost $200 less for the body, and has an electronic viewfinder built-in. The E-P5's sibling, the OM-D E-M5, also has a built-in viewfinder and costs $100 less for the body. The Sony NEX-6 body costs $350 less and also has a built-in viewfinder. A built-in viewfinder frees up the hot shoe for other uses, so the difference isn't price alone.

These prices are over and above the premium you pay for mirrorless ILCs in general. A Canon SL1 with an 18–55mm ƒ/3.5-5.6 IS lens would cost roughly $250 less than the Olympus E-P5 body alone. The price differences in Europe, Asia, and Australia could be even higher. None of this is to imply that price is the only consideration or that the Olympus E-P5 may not be worth it to you. All I'm saying is that it will be interesting to see how well it does given the variety of attractive alternatives. I would much rather have an abundance of great choices rather than fewer.

Philadelphia family man Gordon Lewis, who also writes the photo blog Shutterfinger, has many published articles in photo magazines to his credit. His other interests include guitar, writing, escrima, and martial arts (kali and tai chi). In a former life he was a writer of television sitcoms.

Comments

Thank you for another chapter in a very practical, in-hand evaluation of the E-P5, Gordon.

I think you've largely nailed the prime reason why the E-P5 is reportedly disappointing Olympus; it's no longer price/feature competitive. Its closest brand competitor is probably the E-M5 which offers what seems to be the same sensor and identical performance (per DxO Mark) in a better package of nearly equal size/weight.

And, indeed, the Fujifilm X-E1 has the same gestalt as the Pens, is nearly identical in size to the Pens, has a larger sensor, integrated EVF, good system of lenses, plenty of market momentum, and excellent in-hand feel.

Olympus Pen E-P3 and Fujifilm X-E1

Of course what counts most is how much you enjoy using a particular camera, regardless of its currency or competitive standing. But it's hard to escape the conclusion that Oly's Pen series has outlived its practicality. I cannot imagine that you wold not have been running up the streets with your hair on fire if you were evaluating, for example, the Fujifilm X-E1. In fact, you might have headed straight for the border with the camera, leaving ol' Mike in the lurch.

Depending on purpose and ergonomics, the E-P5s 'siblings', the E-PL5 and E-PM2 may be more compelling.

In return for losing the built-in flash and Wi-Fi and trading 5 axis IBIS for conventional, 2 axis, the E-PL5 gives the same sensor system in a much smaller body.

The E-PM2 drops the tilt screen and Mode dial to get even smaller and lighter. Importantly, it adds dedicated delete and Fn keys, curing the most glaring deficiency of its PM predecessor.

Both bodies retain the battery from the older Pens. Battery life is also far better than the E-M5 and, I suspect, the E-P5, where the lovely 5 axis IBIS significantly shortens battery life. Carry spares!!

Before dismissing the E-PM2, consider the needs of a pocket, purse, bag, casual or street shooting camera. Without a Mode dial, it can't change mode accidentally as pushed/pulled in and out of clothing or bags. I've had E-PLx cameras change mode on me, but never an E-PMx body.

With the touch screen disabled and four way controller semi-disabled*, nothing changes unexpectedly as it is handled. As an almost exclusively aperture preferred shooter, I can leave it in A mode, auto ISO, with my choice of ISO range, and switch AF/MF and 10x view with the two programmable buttons.

Everything I need, and nothing to get mis-set. That makes it a perfect casual or street camera. With fast, pancake lens (Panny 20/1.7 for me) and/or Panny 14-42Z** lens, this may be the most capable pocket camera available, for size/weight, image quality and flexibility.

When I'm in the field, I've taken to carrying two cameras around my neck, E-M5 with 75-300 and E-PM2 with 12-50. Surprisingly light; certainly better than the old days of one camera for B&W and one for color. I'm never caught missing a shot for a lens change. The focal length gap is seldom an issue, as I can usually 'sneaker zoom' - or shoot at 50 and crop a bit. I can't see any difference in the images from the two bodies.

The 75-300 is not just for looong tele. It's excellent for smaller things that are hard to get close to, as it focuses relatively close at the long end. With extension tubes, one can even do macro from a few feet away. Magic in the woods.

The only occasional lens changes are for the 9-18 or auto extension tube, carried in a waist pack with batteries, cards, etc.

Moose

* For all but aperture/EV adjustment, which requires at least two clicks to change so almost never happens unintentionally.

** I don't much like the Oly collapsing 14-42. In use, it's either small, and unusable until manually opened up, or un-collapsed and almost as big as the better, more flexible, 12-50.

Ah, who am I kidding? If I had the money, I'd actually get one of those bodies in a heartbeat. I have a VF3, I have lenses, so it would be a far easier leap for me up to that level. This is a classic case of "the best is the enemy of good enough" What I have really is quite good; I got this while camping this week: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-X4ZO8f9dz6w/Ug6xl2v4gdI/AAAAAAAAFOc/nN8xDA8sVMI/s512/_8131766.JPG but reading this review, I can't help but wonder how I'd have handle it with the improvements I see in Mr. Lewis' illustrations. But would it make $1000 difference in my photos? Doubtful.

Now, 2 digital generations from now when the price of a used E-P5 or E-M5 comes down to half that price? Now that will be a very dangerous time for my wallet.

In my opinion the Panasonic gx7 blows this away (sucker for viewfinder). I'm between the gx7 and the Ricoh GR. I have to decide whether pocketability is more important than viewfinder and interchangeable lenses.

Such a nice camera to be so crippled by a missing a key component--a built in EVF. Come on Olympus, are you the only one that didn't get the memo? Wake up and look ahead, the competition is pulling away.

cheers

[Hi Jack, I really don't think that's quite fair--the OM-D is a very similar camera that does have a built-in viewfinder. They're giving people a choice. Don't you think? --Mike]

I own, and have been shooting with, both the E-P5 and the OM-D (EM-5), along with the usual prime and zoom lenses, for the past several weeks. I own and use other brands as well, and am not an Olympus fan-boy.

For reasons that remain difficult to articulate, I'm more likely to pick up and use the E-P5, not the OM-D, in a small bag that includes a few smaller primes like the 17/1.8, Sigma 30mm DN, and 45/1.8 The E-P5 is very refined at this point, operates and feels more like premium product than prior Pens, and, at least for me, seems more spontaneous in use than the E-M5.

My late teen, a charter member of the stinky diaper approach to photography, briefly used my E-P5 and returned to announce that "I want one". This from someone who typically disdains anything more serious than a Canon S90.

The E-P5's real competition, I think, will be the new Panasonic GX7, which does seem quite similar, interesting, competent and priced nearly identically to the E-P5/VF4 /17 f1.8 Olympus kit. Apparently, Panasonic didn't get the memo, either.

I initially thought that the lack of a built-in EVF would be a deal-breaker for me in terms of purchasing the E-P5, but I was wrong about that. Without the EVF mounted, the E-P5 definitely feels smaller than the E-M5 and in fact it is, about .75 inches less tall. As a result, the E-P5 stows more easily in a very small bag. Comparing front-to-back size, the GX7's EVF adds enough depth to make the GX7 body feel bulkier in some ways.

I can see why Olympus made the design trade-off to continue using an external viewfinder. When the EVF is not mounted, the camera's reasonably compact. When it is mounted, the .74 view is very nice to work with. I'm not sure that it would be possible to pack such a large viewfinder into the E-P5 body without significantly increasing it's size. Now that the the VF-4 locks in place, it's useful to be able to use it when needed in bright light or with long lenses, or leave the EVF in the bag. FWIW, Leica take the same design approach with anything below their M series RF cameras.

Based upon early reviews, I was quite ready to dislike the 17/1.8 but it cost only about $170 more when purchased as part of the kit and turns out to be a really nice default lens to mount on the E-P5. Corner to corner image quality is very good to excellent by f/4 to f/5.6.

It's certainly true that the NEX-6 and the X-E1 are very nice cameras. But, in the end, a range of quality optics is the crux for any camera system with aspirations, and M43 remains far ahead of the other systems in that regard.

In some instances, it seems that one needs to go to Zeiss to get really excellent optics and the extra cost of one high-end Zeiss lens more than makes up for the few hundred dollars extra that the top-tier E-P5 or GX7 cost relative to Sony's and Fujifilm's mid-range mirrorless cameras.

I work with an APS-C Nikon DSLR. When I have the vertical grip and a big lens on it, it's a very serious and heavy camera with enough battery life to last for many days. With the grip removed and a small prime lens on it, it feels very different—not quite a compact camera but very much more manageable for casual use.

It seems from the review that the E-P5 is a step or two further down this road. It's not big to start with, delivers excellent results and, without its viewfinder, it's a compact. It's currently too expensive for me but I'm very drawn to the idea of a very high quality, detachable viewfinder with decent magnification. It's a very attractive package. Thanks for the review—I'll be keeping an eye on prices over the next year.

Please let all the "micro4/3 is doomed" brigade be right. That way I'll be able to afford precious tools like this one, real soon now. :)

Coming back to the reality those folks just can't accept: Oly has another winner in their hands. And no:
the US market is NOT the same as the world market - thank the Gods for that!
And the NEX doesn't have IBIS and neither do any of Oly's competitors and that is a fundamental flaw!

Pity about the price: I really think they need to drop it below the XE1.

But I'd only consider a XE1 once ALL 3rd party RAW processors can handle it without problems.

Until then I'm staying with m43 and quite frankly the naysayers can go fly a kite.

Per Ken Tanaka's comparing the Oly and the Fuji: Not only does the Fuji have a larger sensor, it has superior image quality. At least, their sensor-identical/image quality counterparts do (the OM-D and the X-Pro1). I own and have shot extensively with both, and as impressive as the Oly's image quality is, and it is indeed impressive, the Fujis are better.

I was experiencing similar white balance 'issues' with indoor shots (tungsten/incandescent). In the WB/Color menu options there's a 'WB Auto Keep Warm Color' that seemed to be the source of my color balance issue. When I turned that off it made ALL the difference! WB is now spot on.

I've just picked up an ep-5 this week, and love it so far. IQ is great, as is size, weight and build. 45mm is a super lens, tiltable screen and wifi both work really well, autofocus is fast, and the in-camera IS works. I got the EVF but I've been using the screen mostly as it's so good. But it's there when I need it. Coming from a D700, I know I will be taking a lot more photos with this. Could have waited for Fuji to add the tilt screen and wifi to the rest of the x range, but I can only buy what's available now. Not going to wait for months hoping.

@Joe- "In some instances, it seems that one needs to go to Zeiss to get really excellent optics and the extra cost of one high-end Zeiss lens more than makes up for the few hundred dollars extra that the top-tier E-P5 or GX7 cost relative to Sony's and Fujifilm's mid-range mirrorless cameras."

You do not have to go to Zeiss for quality glass for Fuji. Virtually all the Fuji X system lenses are great, with the XF18 being just ok.

What surprises me most when reading these camera blog comments, are all of those that criticize the lack of a viewfinder... am I missing something here? I actually like using the screen to compose shots... I often shoot from the waist, down close to the ground and from other unusual angles that are impossible using a viewfinder.

I do not have focus issues, and I am quickly becoming a fan of the touch to focus option as well.

Can someone tell me why they think the viewfinder is so critical?

I will even go so far as to say that using a viewfinder contributes to "more of the same" photos... by shooting mostly from an eye level POV (looking thru the EVF)the resulting images tend to be mostly predictable and boring... again IMHO.

I am a longtime Canon shooter, and recently shot for the first time with an m43 kit... and I was simply stunned by the quality of the images...

I liked the small inconspicuous body even more, which allowed me to get closer to people without making them feel self conscious or nervous.

new to the forum and not sure about your rules... but if you are curious to see how I work without a viewfinder... here is a link to some recent images.

I wouldn't go so far as to call an eye-level viewfinder "critical", but I can tell you that as a middle-aged photographer it can be difficult to use a rear LCD without reading glasses or bifocals. Eyelevel viewfinders are corrected for a more distant eyepoint and therefore don't require your eyes to be able to focus on close-up objects.

It can also be difficult to see a rear LCD in bright light, especially when the sun is shining over your shoulder. The E-P5 was better than average in this respect but still not as easy to see in all conditions as an eyelevel viewfinder. Suffice it to say that those who prefer at least the option of an eyelevel viewfinder have good reasons.